How many days of the user's allowance in a country are used and how many remain this year — the answer to "how much longer can I stay".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| country_code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lowered. The description adds context about the output (used and remaining days) without contradicting the annotations. No side effects are mentioned, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that packs the essential information without any fluff. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (used and remaining days). It also gives a real-world use case. However, it omits details about error handling or edge cases, which might be acceptable for a simple read operation but leaves some context unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero coverage for parameter descriptions. The description refers to 'a country' and 'this year' but does not explicitly connect them to the country_code and year parameters. It leaves the mapping implicit, which is insufficient for a tool with undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to report used and remaining days of a visa allowance in a country, directly answering the question 'how much longer can I stay.' It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_country_info or get_journey.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when needing visa allowance information) and provides a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls slightly short of 'explicit when/when-not' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.